Blog

With the 114th Congress underway, the scientific community is looking forward to sharing new research breakthroughs and advocating for STEM during a series of congressional visits to Capitol Hill. In some instances, scientists and trainees will assist writing congressional briefs and give testimony to House and Senate committees on science, technology and health.

While Congress is considering science policy initiatives, positions and funding, there are a few things in the early-career scientist “wish list” that would make improvements and maintain the United States’ leading position in the scientific enterprise.

Throughout 2014, early-career scientists discussed specific issues in science policy groups, on social media and in articles that need to be addressed. These are some of the highlights of the conversations that have been put in a “Wish List” that hopefully Congress and policymakers will strongly consider.

NOTE: The except below is from a series of articles by Fathers published by the Maynard Institute for Journalism Eduction.

By Caleph B. Wilson

This Father’s Day will be my second as a new dad and, with it, my happiness has grown tremendously. Explaining the value and excitement of being a father is difficult. It requires that a man lay down his shield, take off his breastplate and expose his heart.

On the third Sunday of each June, family members make phone calls, send cards and gather to celebrate biological dads and the many men who serve as father figures. Each of us has unique experiences with our dads and the men who support us. Many commercial images we see will remind us of men who hold a special place in guiding our lives. As we view those images, men like me, a black father, feel explosions of happiness like all fathers. But something puts an asterisk on the joy.

The asterisk often refers to the many news reports and pundits offering statistics about how engaged black fathers are more rare than a leap year. My many experiences tell me otherwise. Yet the counter messages fight very hard to settle in our minds. So let me offer a perspective on how reality should lead the way we view black fathers and how those fathers should view themselves.

Without guidance by my dad, uncles, cousins and mentors, my life would not have been as happy.

Each man in my life has given a bit of himself to shape the man that I am. That is a debt that I cannot repay. At every turn of my life, a community of fathers has been there for me. That perspective can be found throughout the vast majority of families and communities nationwide.

Some things in Jason Whitlock’s post rings true; however, it lacks a bit of critical analysis of what actually happened in terms of athletics and academic development at historically black colleges and universities (HBCUs).

Whitlock failed to mention how from the 1970s until today, predominantly white institutions (PWIs) recruit black athletes for their programs very hard. While at one time many of them considered black athletes to be inferior. As always selling tickets, i.e. making money, eventually trumps bias when it comes to making profit. (Today many PWIs still have higher percentages of black athletes than they do black students overall.)

PWIs operating on large budgets have convinced most of the best black athletes to attend their schools and participate in their programs. Recruitment has become almost a quantitative mathematical process. PWIs find the talent leaves while leaving room for HBCUs or minority serving institutions (MSIs).

Calling Coach Robinson the “Knute Rockne” and Grambling the “Notre Dame” of black football is frankly an insult. Based on the talent that came out of Grambling, it was the flagship of college football, PERIOD. Likely, until the mid-1970s Grambling and many other HBCUs would have likely “beat the breaks” off any PWI that took the field. (We can find out when someone makes a reliable time machine.) I would love to have been able to see video of any PWI national champion play the black college national champion from 1920-1970.

How much wealth would HBCUs have gained if they were able to keep the past stream of athletic talent in place up until today? HBCUs would have been able to build 60,000 – 100,000 seat stadiums or arenas. Imagined 10s of millions of dollars of decades of tax exempt revenue.

Let us take a few moments to imagine the amplification of the impact on the numbers of black civil and thought leaders, if pubic HBCUs would have been funded on par with state PWIs. What types of academic capacity could have been grown? How many large donors could have been attracted to the an engineering, mathematics, agriculture, medicine and education programs.

Therefore, alumni and black community giving is not the sole reason that HBCUs face increased difficulties today. Yet, alumni giving has it’s place in the current issues that HBCUs face.

As for the truth portion of Whitlock’s post, giving to HBCU’s by blacks is lagging behind horribly. The black community and HBCU alumni faithfully attend HBCU sporting and social events. Unfortunately, that enthusiastic HBCU spirit does not translate to high levels of direct giving to HBCUs.

Overall, blacks give a higher percentage of their income to donations to non-profit organizations. Most of these organizations are faith based. Therefore, HBCUs and alumni have to reformulate the approach to soliciting donations. Perhaps, working with places of worship can build scholarship funding bases.

During a recent conversation with Nelson Bowman III, Executive Director of Development at Prairie View A&M University, he proposed a fundraising challenge to me and other HBCU alumni. If 2,000 alumni of any specific HBCU gave $50 per month for a full year it would raise $1.2 million for the school. Increasing the amount the donation or number of alumni would insure that the amount of money raised increases.

Other than money, alumni should also be willing to do pro bono work for HBCUs. Donating our professional skills and time can help cut cost for the schools.

As outline in Whitlock’s piece, HBCUs have produced leaders in a wide range of professions throughout the country. That is an opportunity to bring a diverse range of talent together to help HBCUs think through issues, solve problems and execute innovative solutions.

Yes, problems exist at HBCUs just like PWIs have issues. Alumni can help HBCUs implement their respective missions and raise funds. We have to translate our love for HBCUs into attainment of resources. After all, if you are like me, your professional existence would not likely have happened without walking the hallowed grounds of an HBCU.

About the Author: Caleph B. Wilson, PhD is an affiliate member of the Center for Minority Serving Institutions and biomedical sciences postdoctoral fellow at Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania. He is also a graduate of Alcorn State University Alumni and member of the National Science and Technology News Service. In addition to his work as a scientist, he participates in outreach programs to promote STEM, through mentoring, science education and professional development advisement. Follow him on Twitter: @HeyDrWilson

In this environment of limited educational funds, stable leadership is the key to ensuring the health of any university. However, unsteady leadership acutely impacts historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs). With the recent departure of Alcorn State University’s former president, M. Christopher Brown, another HBCU has seen a change in leadership. Unfortunately, some of these leadership changes have been marred in scandal.

As an Alcorn alumnus, I am very concerned with Brown’s unexpected departure. The Institutions of Higher Learning (IHL), Mississippi’s public college and university governing body, is investigating Brown’s purchasing practices. In addition, the IHL is planning a search for Alcorn’s next president. During the search process, my No. 1 question is: How can alumni work with IHL to assist in finding the best candidates?

Traditionally, HBCU presidential candidates have moved from leadership positions at other HBCUs. Also, they have traditionally been alumni of HBCUs or minority serving institutions (MSI). In the past, that was a good formula for the HBCU seeking a new president. However, it leaves one HBCU without leadership while another one gains from their loss. This situation presents an opportunity to expand the leadership search outside the ranks of the traditional HBCU community.

Within the last few years there are some HBCU presidents that have switched institutions and left their previous schools in better shape than they left them. Presidents like Walter Kimbrough at Dillard and Ronald Mason Jr. of the Southern University System improved Philander Smith and Jackson State University, respectively. They represent the type of leadership that Alcorn should be looking for.

Diversity has become a watchword in the scientific community. For the last 20 years colleges, universities, government science agencies and private foundations have worked to increase the numbers of scientists from under-represented backgrounds. Some of these policy changes have resulted in an increase and improved retention of scientists from low socio-economic homes, women and ethnic minorities. Additionally, funding was put in place to support science policy changes and build the infrastructure to produce scientists from communities that have traditionally had no personal interactions with scientists.

I was fortunate to be one of many scientists who benefited from institutions that participated in programs sponsored by one or more of the funding agencies mentioned above. However, there is a concerning by-product of the strides to increase the diversity within Science, Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM) disciplines. STEM training is a rigorous process and the environment in which it happens often isolates under-represented minority (URM) scientists. Moreover, many URM scientists do not have substantive dialogs about their work with members of their own communities. This means that an enormous repository of information is not connected to underserved groups. For this reason, many URM scholars work diligently to counter the isolation of science training and connect with their communities.

* This article was originally published in the Fall 2013 issue of the Biomedical Postdoctoral Council’s Newsletter.

By Caleph B. Wilson

The University of Pennsylvania kicked off National Postdoc Appreciation week with a very exciting two part proposal writing workshop, “Best Practices For Effective Team Writing and Developing Grant Proposals” by Dr. Judy Swan. She the Associate Director for Writing in Science and Engineering of Princeton University’s Writing Program. Dr. Swan’s background as both a biomedical graduate student and postdoc mirrors the experiences of the postdocs under the Biomedical Postdoctoral Programs umbrella; therefore, she brought a wealth of relevant expertise. Dr. Swan’s morning session focused on writing as a team and the proposal structure. The afternoon focused on how to move forward with developing and writing a proposal.

From the beginning of the workshop, Dr. Swan pointed out a very key point, which is this, “What distinguishes scientific writing from other forms of writing is that we write in teams.” However, postdoctoral level scientific team writing has an apparent issue. As graduate students, we are sent off to write papers and theses, alone. After finally struggling and getting something written, our PI takes the ‘correction pen’ and enthusiastically provides feedback in the form red text and comments. Our writing is hard to pin-point in all the changes outlined by ‘tracked changes.’ In order to transition to effective team writing, we have to begin to think about writing in terms similar to how we collaborate on research projects. Dr. Swan explains that in team writing “you will get a draft from people (or write one) that does not look like what you need it to look like.” The question is this: How do you move forward with crafting a proposal that transforms into a well written and clear document? First, determine the major expectations of the writing. Get feedback to improve your document. Finally, rewrite the document to conform to the readers’ expectations, for a solid proposal.

In the case of proposals, the funding agency’s reviewers are the reader that you are considering. The goal is to get your proposal read and scored. This may seem like an obvious point, but in this tough funding environment the writer that passes the triage process has a fighting chance at getting scored. Moreover, a well written proposal has a stronger opportunity at scoring well.

Dr. Swan laid out a number of points that will help your proposal survive the triage process.

Yes, “the devil is in the details.” Groups, organizations and agencies have very specific structure and instructions. You do not want a lack of following instructions to be what tanks your beloved proposal. Remember, funders and reviewers are looking for reasons to reduce the stack of grants that they receive.

2) Make sure that your proposal has all the elements outlined by the funder.

Although, you have thoroughly read the instructions and put your grant together, it is possible to focus on some aspects more closely than others. Those parts that seem to be easier can be easily overlooked. I have found creating a checklist to be the best way to ensure that my proposals have required elements.

3) Know which parts of the grant require the most emphasis.

The type of grant can determine what elements are more critical. Because postdocs are early career investigators, some grants may focus more on your personal or leadership backgrounds. Others may need you to emphasize your science. Weight your proposal appropriately.

4) Be clear on the proposal review process.

Developing projects and executing them is stressful enough. Try not to compound your stress by letting your imagination run wild! Be clear on the time frame of the review process and how it proceeds. Moreover, do not be afraid to follow up if the review process exceeds the timetable. Unforeseeable events happen. You need to know if you should be working on a resubmission, or submitting elsewhere.

5) Write in a way that allows your reviewer to be enthusiastic about your proposal.

Enthusiasm should be the result of the rewriting that you and your team have done. An excited reviewer will likely give you a fundable score and fight for your proposal during a study section. Out of a stack of grants that a reviewer has slogged through, an easily readable and solid proposal is refreshing, according to Dr. Swan.

Prior to starting the writing workshop’s afternoon session, some of us were able to participate in roundtable discussions. Dr. Swan had us tackle the one of the most difficult parts of writing – getting words on the page. Many postdocs have to get over the hurdle of starting a writing project before moving to the team writing process. To describe this process Dr. Swan said, “It is hard to believe writing is a process of injury.”

Afterward, the roundtable discussion had some great points on how to bet the writing engine warmed up. Here are a few things that were mentioned by postdocs:

“Use your (lab) notebook to put parts (of papers) together early.”

“Write everything in your (lab notebook’s) results comprehensively. Read it the next day and refine what you wrote.”

“Write figures (and legends) first.”

“Write the introduction (and abstract) last.”

“Try writing something every day to make writing a habit.”

Overall, getting some words on the page represents the best way to get your writing moving forward. Spend some time to refine your best practices. You have a writing rhythm. Find it and writing will become routine.

Dr. Swan’s afternoon session highlighted the stages of writing. As you consider putting your proposal together, keep your process in mind. Dr. Swan mentioned this, “Writing is a physical process. What is your ritual?” For example, do you need to set aside a half-day block of time, play your favorite music and get a glass of your favorite beverage to get into your writing rhythm?

As you morph into a writing superhero prepare yourself to move through the writing stages. That starts with giving yourself an adequate timeline to complete your proposal. Start with asking this question: How much time do I need to get this proposal written? The appropriate answer to this question is based on a realistic assessment of your skills and the scope of the proposal. Getting through following steps is key: 1) Pre-drafting, 2) Drafting, 3) Revising, and 4) Editing/Proofing.

Pre-drafting entails everything that you do to get the background materials ready. This usually means a large and scattered pile of papers or files. What is the best way for you to manage moving through these materials? Organize them to in a way that keeps you on task. This is when you explore your ideas and develop an outline for a coherent proposal draft.

After getting your thoughts and plan together begin writing. Revisit the key point of your proposal multiple times throughout the draft. The reviewer will know your point because you will keep reminding him or her.

Analyzing what you have written is part of the revising process. Does your preliminary data support your aims? Do you need to do more experiments that are in line with your proposal? This is a good time to for the writing team of co-authors and contributors to review the proposal. Putting together the best proposal prior to the editing process is your aim.

Editing is the time to eliminate unnecessary words and sentences. Start with having your editorial support review the proposal. Multiple editors can give you a fresh perspective on the document. They will be able to help you flesh out glaring issues with readability. During the drafting process you worked steadfastly to get your words on the page. Editors should go through your proposal sentence-by-sentence. Each sentence should support the point of the proposal.

After moving through the stages of the writing process the reviewers should easily be able to read your proposal. “We want the reviewer to make up their mind in the first reading,” says Dr. Swan. Additionally, she points out that “every sentence needs to maintain the same judgment throughout the document.”

A final take home message: If you can get the reviewer to become and stay interested in your proposal, you will be off to a good start. Keep in mind that a well prepared, edited and written proposal is both necessary and sufficient to garnering enthusiastic support of your reviewer.